beardmcdoug wrote:lol only a matter of time before the humans are dubbed (and with good reason, tbh) too much of a liability to be steering their own car on the road. Insurance risk will dictate this - you will pay a premium for being a "manual" operator for a short transition period probably - then a few years later, we're kicked out of the drive seat for good!

Enjoy driving while you can fellers. hopefully it doesn't happen too soon. I love driving. But I'm thinking this will most likely occur within our life time

Like with most automation predictions, "our lifetime" seems a bit rushed for people to not be allowed to drive themselves.

I highly doubt this one though. The technology is already ready (it's at about 99% of the way to "being there", its just in the fine-tune stage), the people want it (you've got to remember what phone-obsessed morons the majority of society is), and the lowered costs will create a windfall in that direction once the first domino falls

I am 29. By the year 2067, not a soul will manually operate a vehicle. feel free to bump this around then if I'm wrong

bucfanclw wrote:If insurance rates are cut for automated vehicles while yours stays the same, are they getting a discount or are you paying a premium?

a premium, relative

if you're a new driver and you're coming into this paradigm, and you opt to be a "manual driver", you will pay a premium

f your semantics

So of all the discounts that an insurance company can offer for things ranging from lower horsepower car to setting up automatic payments, this one discount is suddenly some sort of paradigm shift for you?

Quite rightly insurance rates should be set up by actuarial tables. If driver less cars cause less accidents in the future, they should get a lower rate. If people cause more accidents, they should get a higher rate.

It's one of the things I absolutely hate about our current form of health insurance, particularly group insurance -- we don't use actuarial tables for life choices that impact health costs. For example, I choose to ride dirtbikes...a sport that leads to massive health care bills (I have broken about 10 bones in my life doing it)....yet I don't have to pay a surcharge for this. The guy who would rather sit at home and watch golf on TV has to subsidize me.

... you don't think the idea that you literally will not be influencing the vehicle's movement, besides setting a destination when you get in, is some sort of paradigm shift (especially in regards to liability)?

this isn't even on the spectrum. this isn't "oh people with fast cars have a tendency to drive faster and increase their risk by some marginal 5-10%, so we're going to charge them a marginal 5-10% premium for driving that fast car"

this is "the people who elect to 'drive' driverless cars are not even remotely involved with any sort of driving behavior and any accident that occurs with them inside the vehicle had was of absolutely zero consequence of their actions while in the car"

beardmcdoug wrote:... you don't think the idea that you literally will not be influencing the vehicle's movement, besides setting a destination when you get in, is some sort of paradigm shift (especially in regards to liability)?

this isn't even on the spectrum. this isn't "oh people with fast cars have a tendency to drive faster and increase their risk by some marginal 5-10%, so we're going to charge them a marginal 5-10% premium for driving that fast car"

this is "the people who elect to 'drive' driverless cars are not even remotely involved with any sort of driving behavior and any accident that occurs with them inside the vehicle had was of absolutely zero consequence of their actions while in the car"

how is that not a complete paradigm shift?

This is an interesting thought....maybe the insurance should actually be carried by the auto manufacturer?

beardmcdoug wrote:... you don't think the idea that you literally will not be influencing the vehicle's movement, besides setting a destination when you get in, is some sort of paradigm shift (especially in regards to liability)?

this isn't even on the spectrum. this isn't "oh people with fast cars have a tendency to drive faster and increase their risk by some marginal 5-10%, so we're going to charge them a marginal 5-10% premium for driving that fast car"

this is "the people who elect to 'drive' driverless cars are not even remotely involved with any sort of driving behavior and any accident that occurs with them inside the vehicle had was of absolutely zero consequence of their actions while in the car"

how is that not a complete paradigm shift?

This is an interesting thought....maybe the insurance should actually be carried by the auto manufacturer?

that was my thought as I was typing out the original post about this - apparently its a major question in the minds of the people working on this - between the vehicle manufacturer, navigation systems, insurance agencies, and gov, it's still a major question how this is all going to work. it is the question - not whether this will work or not, it is - no matter what; its just a matter of ironing out the bureaucratic details to make the jump relatively seamless. make no mistake though, clw, this is absolutely a paradigm shift, and this liability detail is really the only speed bump. and it will get solved

edit: it's also why I believe google is going to be the lead in this, not a car company. its the navigation system that is the most critical aspect of eliminating danger/liability - the car is just the relative blunt tool; and its easier to be a incredibly endowed information company taking on a piece of machinery than it is a machine manufacturing company, trying to learn to be a high tech, high fidelity information/systems company. google will push their single-point liability approach, handling all things under their umbrella and government will give them the green light due to the simplicity. IMO of course

Automation: Not so dire as one might think. Of course, those of us in high-risk jobs would do very well to preemptively seek training in lower risk jobs now rather than wait until they find themselves out of a job due to automation.

Automation could destroy as many as 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030, but economic growth, rising productivity and other forces could more than offset the losses, according to a new report by McKinsey Global Institute.

“The dire predictions that robots are going to take our jobs are overstated,” says Susan Lund, the group’s director of research and co-author of the study. “There will be enough jobs for everyone in most sectors.”

Yet maintaining full employment will require a huge overhaul of the economy and labor market that rivals or exceeds the nation’s massive shifts from agriculture- and manufacturing-dominated societies over the past 165 years, the report says.

“I think it’s going to be a difficult transition,” Lund says.

Machines and artificial intelligence are already spreading rapidly with the advent of with self-driving cars, software that can respond to customer service inquiries and robots that can man assembly lines, flip hamburgers and check store inventory.

In a study early this year, McKinsey found that about half of all work activities globally have the technological potential to be automated, but the new report provides a more realistic assessment based on economic, social and technical factors. It concludes that from zero to a third of work activities could be displaced by 2030.

In the U.S., 39 million to 73 million jobs could be destroyed, but about 20 million of those displaced workers can be shifted fairly easily into similar occupations, though they may take on slightly different tasks, the report says. That means 16 million to 54 million workers — or as much as a third of the U.S. workforce — will need to be retrained for entirely new occupations.

Globally, up to 800 million workers could be displaced and as many as 375 million may need to learn new skills for new occupational categories. Advanced economies such as the U.S. that have higher wages are more vulnerable to the adoption of labor-saving technology.

The employment growth needed to replace the jobs eradicated will come in part from automation itself — the new workers needed to operate the machines, as well as the increased productivity and economic growth that automation will generate through bigger company profits and higher wages. Also, however, jobs will be created from rising incomes and consumption, an aging population that will demand more health care professionals and investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, the study says.

Jobs most susceptible to automation are physical ones in predictable environments. Those include workers who operate machinery, prepare fast food, collect and process data, originate mortgages and do paralegal and accounting work.

Jobs safest from the effects of automation involve managing people, high-level expertise and unpredictable environments. They include engineers, scientists, health care providers, educators and IT professionals, as well as gardeners, plumbers and elder care providers.

As a result, high-wage workers are expected to be less affected by the sweeping changes because they have skills that machines can’t replace. Low-wage jobs also could grow rapidly, partly because they cost employers less and so are often not worth supplanting with technology, while many are in health care, such as home health aides. That means middle-wage jobs will continue to decline, widening the divide between wealthy and low-income households, the report says.

The biggest challenge, Lund says, will be retraining millions of workers midcareer. Governments and businesses already have fallen short in the retraining of workers who lost jobs in the recession of 2007 to 2009.

“The big question isn’t, 'Will there be jobs?' ” Lund says. “The big question is, 'Will people who lost jobs be able to get new ones?' ”

According to the report, “there are few precedents in which societies have successfully retrained such large numbers of people.”

Governments will also need to provide income support and other assistance to help workers transition to new occupations and increase investments in infrastructure and energy to boost economic growth, the study says.

The authors acknowledge that the adoption of automation could be far slower than they anticipate, perhaps forcing fewer than 10 million workers globally to switch occupations.

Even under the more rapid spread of the technologies, the authors conclude that the six major countries they studied in detail, including the U.S., should be at or near full employment by 2030. But if many displaced workers don’t have new jobs within a year, unemployment could rise and dampen wage growth” in the short and medium term.

A guy from McKinsey was on NPR last week discussing this issue. He basically said the same things -- with very few exceptions, automation and technology has ended up creating jobs...not destroying them.

Zarniwoop wrote:A guy from McKinsey was on NPR last week discussing this issue. He basically said the same things -- with very few exceptions, automation and technology has ended up creating jobs...not destroying them.

Good article BUC2...thanks for posting

For me, this shouldn't be much of an issue since I'm eyeing retirement at some point over the next 10 years. For my two daughters, however, it certainly will be an issue. One is currently a manager of a cellular retail store and is eyeing a transition to real estate sales. The other just recently transitioned into the IT field. The former probably needs to rethink her choice and consider retraining in a lower risk job now rather than later. The latter needs to stick with and continue to progress in the IT field.

yep, undoubtedly people will have to pay more attention to career and industry choice as the next tech/automation wave comes through

But the same things holds true today that has always held true - gather as many valuable skills and as much diverse knowledge as you can....someone does that, and even if their particular job is automated away, they will do just fine.

Zarniwoop wrote:A guy from McKinsey was on NPR last week discussing this issue. He basically said the same things -- with very few exceptions, automation and technology has ended up creating jobs...not destroying them.

Good article BUC2...thanks for posting

For me, this shouldn't be much of an issue since I'm eyeing retirement at some point over the next 10 years. For my two daughters, however, it certainly will be an issue. One is currently a manager of a cellular retail store and is eyeing a transition to real estate sales. The other just recently transitioned into the IT field. The former probably needs to rethink her choice and consider retraining in a lower risk job now rather than later. The latter needs to stick with and continue to progress in the IT field.

I'm in my mid-30's and doing well for myself. I've worked in the IT field basically since I graduated high school. I started going back to school and learning coding last spring. Currently taking 3 courses all in different programming languages. Probably going to even take a full load next semester and wrap up a little AS in programming within the next year. I'm actually really enjoying learning the stuff.

Buc2 wrote:Automation: Not so dire as one might think. Of course, those of us in high-risk jobs would do very well to preemptively seek training in lower risk jobs now rather than wait until they find themselves out of a job due to automation.

Automation could destroy as many as 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030, but economic growth, rising productivity and other forces could more than offset the losses, according to a new report by McKinsey Global Institute.

“The dire predictions that robots are going to take our jobs are overstated,” says Susan Lund, the group’s director of research and co-author of the study. “There will be enough jobs for everyone in most sectors.”

Yet maintaining full employment will require a huge overhaul of the economy and labor market that rivals or exceeds the nation’s massive shifts from agriculture- and manufacturing-dominated societies over the past 165 years, the report says.

“I think it’s going to be a difficult transition,” Lund says.

Machines and artificial intelligence are already spreading rapidly with the advent of with self-driving cars, software that can respond to customer service inquiries and robots that can man assembly lines, flip hamburgers and check store inventory.

In a study early this year, McKinsey found that about half of all work activities globally have the technological potential to be automated, but the new report provides a more realistic assessment based on economic, social and technical factors. It concludes that from zero to a third of work activities could be displaced by 2030.

In the U.S., 39 million to 73 million jobs could be destroyed, but about 20 million of those displaced workers can be shifted fairly easily into similar occupations, though they may take on slightly different tasks, the report says. That means 16 million to 54 million workers — or as much as a third of the U.S. workforce — will need to be retrained for entirely new occupations.

Globally, up to 800 million workers could be displaced and as many as 375 million may need to learn new skills for new occupational categories. Advanced economies such as the U.S. that have higher wages are more vulnerable to the adoption of labor-saving technology.

The employment growth needed to replace the jobs eradicated will come in part from automation itself — the new workers needed to operate the machines, as well as the increased productivity and economic growth that automation will generate through bigger company profits and higher wages. Also, however, jobs will be created from rising incomes and consumption, an aging population that will demand more health care professionals and investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, the study says.

Jobs most susceptible to automation are physical ones in predictable environments. Those include workers who operate machinery, prepare fast food, collect and process data, originate mortgages and do paralegal and accounting work.

Jobs safest from the effects of automation involve managing people, high-level expertise and unpredictable environments. They include engineers, scientists, health care providers, educators and IT professionals, as well as gardeners, plumbers and elder care providers.

As a result, high-wage workers are expected to be less affected by the sweeping changes because they have skills that machines can’t replace. Low-wage jobs also could grow rapidly, partly because they cost employers less and so are often not worth supplanting with technology, while many are in health care, such as home health aides. That means middle-wage jobs will continue to decline, widening the divide between wealthy and low-income households, the report says.

The biggest challenge, Lund says, will be retraining millions of workers midcareer. Governments and businesses already have fallen short in the retraining of workers who lost jobs in the recession of 2007 to 2009.

“The big question isn’t, 'Will there be jobs?' ” Lund says. “The big question is, 'Will people who lost jobs be able to get new ones?' ”

According to the report, “there are few precedents in which societies have successfully retrained such large numbers of people.”

Governments will also need to provide income support and other assistance to help workers transition to new occupations and increase investments in infrastructure and energy to boost economic growth, the study says.

The authors acknowledge that the adoption of automation could be far slower than they anticipate, perhaps forcing fewer than 10 million workers globally to switch occupations.

Even under the more rapid spread of the technologies, the authors conclude that the six major countries they studied in detail, including the U.S., should be at or near full employment by 2030. But if many displaced workers don’t have new jobs within a year, unemployment could rise and dampen wage growth” in the short and medium term.

And let's not forget that, obviously, the population will grow over the next 13 years, adding more people into the job seeking pool, which will put us up to 360 million from our current 330 million. And since the birth rate in the US is right at replacement, we can assume that there will be roughly equal that amount becoming of working age over that time, and with roughly half of them looking for work, that gives us another +15 millionhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/183481/united-states-population-projection/

So all said and done, we're looking at roughly 40 million people in this country that flat out won't fit into the job sector by 2030 thanks to automation, taking into account both job sector growth and population growth over that time

And that's only up until 2030. We're not just going to hit pause on the automation trend at 2030. It only gets more sophisticated and "worse" for the worker from there. You don't just take the bottom half of the economic food pyramid and CRAM those workers into the top half without some SERIOUS market fuckery. You just don't. It's impossible.

Here's a few of my favorite lines in the article:

The employment growth needed to replace the jobs eradicated will come in part from automation itself — the new workers needed to operate the machines, as well as the increased productivity and economic growth that automation will generate through bigger company profits and higher wages.

LOL WHAT? Economic growth coming from taking 10 guys, replacing them with 2 robots, and then hiring 1 guy to watch the robots? Does this person understand what the term "net" means? The second line is pure fantasy within this paradigm of surplus workers and company structure based on turning the bottom of the pyramid into robots.

Jobs safest from the effects of automation involve managing people, high-level expertise and unpredictable environments. They include engineers, scientists, health care providers, educators and IT professionals, as well as gardeners, plumbers and elder care providers.

Beardmcdoug, you stupid ****, everybody should just become managers, doctors and scientists instead of working at mcdonalds!

Low-wage jobs also could grow rapidly, partly because they cost employers less and so are often not worth supplanting with technology,

LMAO

Not to mention, I'm willing to err on the side that we're vastly underestimating the impact and capabilities of AI/automation in terms of mobility, navigation and dexterity (exactly what DN is alluding to)

At least the article gets this:

“there are few precedents in which societies have successfully retrained such large numbers of people.”

and this:

Governments will also need to provide income support and other assistance to help workers transition to new occupations and increase investments in infrastructure and energy to boost economic growth, the study says.

right

I get that none of us truly know what this is all actually going to look like. But for an extensive study to release figures estimating that somewhere close to 1/3 of the US working population will flat out not fit in the economy in the next 13 years, and to insinuate that this isn't really a big deal just flat out doesn't add up to me. Figuring out this transformation is absolutely the most paramount issue to solve over the next 10-20-30-50 years and no politician has even remotely started the conversation lmao. Why? because every solution is so incredibly radical to anything we'd even consider, especially in this bi-partisan atmosphere. Radical problems necessitate radical solutions though...

A big reason Americans don't do those types of jobs, Red is because they don't pay for ****.

Not saying there's a line of millenials standing by the road staring longingly at an orange grove, but given equal pay and opportunity to even get the job, I'd venture that plenty of folks would rather pick oranges than work at a gas station.

A similar security robot equipped with weapons has been demonstrated in China, potentially pointing to the direction such autonomous machines are taking.

The AnBot, developed at China’s National Defense University, was described by local media last year as the country’s first “intelligent security robot” and came equipped with “sensors that mimic the human brain, eyes and ears.”

In the future, AnBot’s developers hope, it will be deployed in areas prone to civil unrest or violence.

“AnBot has a high degree of autonomy,” said Xiao Xiangjiang from the National Defense University. “It can patrol, avoid obstacles, identify and recharge on its own. It is equipped with weapons to prevent and control violence by remote control. Moreover, it could be a service provider, which makes it more practical.”